Retrieve Dutch or English contract text and interpretation for a specified rule, decision, or article to validate invoice compliance against Article 4.
Contract text (Dutch and English) and our reading for a rule (R0-R20), decision (Q1-Q21) or article (4.1-4.10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | ||
| rule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by saying it returns contract text and 'our reading,' but discloses nothing about permissions, error behavior, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical ranges communicate parameter formats efficiently. It is reasonably front-loaded with the returned content, though the sentence is slightly compressed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the read behavior and both parameters. It covers identifier types but omits folder semantics and behavioral context, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does compensate for the required rule_id by naming the accepted identifier formats (R0-R20, Q1-Q21, 4.1-4.10). However, the optional 'folder' parameter is not explained in the description or schema, leaving a meaningful gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific resource (contract text and the system's reading) and the identifier classes it accepts: rule R0-R20, decision Q1-Q21, or article 4.1-4.10. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and there are no close siblings to differentiate from, so it is clear but not quite a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to call it; usage is only implied by needing contract text for an identifier. Prerequisites and workflow context are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.